While The New York Times claims to be an impartial news organization, it only took conservative actor James Woods one tweet to shred the paper for its blatant bias.
On Tuesday, the Times published a piece titled “Trump Accuses Former Clinton Aide of Failing to Follow Security Protocols.” The story failed to mention several key details.
Woods fired off a scathing tweet Wednesday linking to the Times article, where he pointed out three major facts the left-leaning paper conveniently failed to mention.
“Only the @nytimes could publish this story without mentioning that a) Abedin emailed a classified password, b) her husband is in prison, and c) she broke federal espionage laws,” Woods wrote.
Only the @nytimes could publish this story without mentioning that a) Abedin emailed a classified password, b) her husband is in prison, and c) she broke federal espionage laws. https://t.co/zlFR0ZG0MZ
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 3, 2018
While the Times article does mention that Abedin “forwarded some government passwords to her private Yahoo email account in 2009,” the paper completely failed to note that her actions quite possibly violated espionage laws and that she emailed classified passwords.
The paper also failed to mention that Abedin’s husband, former Democrat politician Anthony Weiner, is serving 21-month sentence for sexting with a minor.
In the article, Abedin’s serial sex offender spouse is referred to as her “estranged husband” and not the pervert he pleaded guilty to being.
“On Friday, the State Department released about 3,000 of Ms. Abedin’s work-related emails. The emails were found on the laptop of Ms. Abedin’s now estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner, and were released as part of a public records request,” the Times reported.
As noted by The Daily Wire, the paper also downplayed the fact that Abedin illegally had classified and highly sensitive material on Weiner’s laptop by describing it simply as a “sore spot” for then Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
“The emails found on Mr. Weiner’s computer are a sore spot for Mrs. Clinton. James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, had notified Congress shortly before the 2016 election about the existence of newly discovered emails that could be relevant to the closed investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state,” the Times wrote.
The paper continued: “Mrs. Clinton, in a book released last year, said Mr. Comey’s disclosure hurt her campaign’s momentum and helped Mr. Trump win the election.”
Then, an article that was supposed to detail how Abedin violated federal law veers into a hit piece against President Donald Trump.
Rather than beginning the article with context on Abedin’s background, how she served as a top confidant to the Clinton’s for many years, and why her husband was in prison, the paper instead scolds Trump for his tweets about Clinton and Abedin.
The Times article spent more time excoriating Trump for a tweet he sent on on Tuesday than on Abedin’s careless behavior.
Check out his tweet below:
Crooked Hillary Clinton’s top aid, Huma Abedin, has been accused of disregarding basic security protocols. She put Classified Passwords into the hands of foreign agents. Remember sailors pictures on submarine? Jail! Deep State Justice Dept must finally act? Also on Comey & others
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2018
Woods eviscerated the Times with his tweet because the left-leaning paper was so determined to attack Trump, they failed to mention that Abedin more than likely violated a slew federal laws by being so careless with classified information.
That’s something she more than likely learned from Clinton, one would assume.
Once again, Woods does what he does best: exposes liberals and the mainstream media for their blatant hypocrisy and bias.
Please like and share this story if you’re glad James Woods exposed The New York Times for the biased reporting that shielded the severity of Huma Abedin’s illegal actions.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.